IMPORTANT POINT
Delay and cancellation of Flight must be properly explained by Airlines.

Vinay Kumar, Member—M/s. Indian Airlines (presently known as “Air India Ltd.”) have challenged the common order of the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commisision in Appeal No. 329 of 2012 (appellant-Indian Airlines) and Appeal No. 575/2011 (appellant K. Balachandran Thampi). These two are cross-appeals filed by the OP and the complainant, arising out of the same matter before the District Forum. The District Forum had allowed the complaint of Mr. K. Balachandran Thampi and the appeal of the OP/India Airlines has been dismissed by the State Commission.

2. From a perusal of the records, pleadings of the parties and arguments before the fora below, we find that OP/Indian Airlines has expended considerable amount of effort in justifying the delay and eventual cancellation of the flight. Their focus on the manner in which the delay and cancellation were handled vis-a-vis the passengers, has been much less than required as the complaint is about the deficiency of service to the passengers resulting from the manner of handelling of the delay and cancellation. It is not whether delay was technically justifiable or not. The case of the complainant is that:

“The complainants reached the Airport well in advance and boarding passes were issued to them for their entry to the aircraft. The copies of the Boarding passes are produced as Exhibits P-4 and P-4(a). However, all the passengers were instructed to get down from the aircraft for reasons best known to the officials only and at no point of time the reasons were explained to the complainants even after repeated enquiries. The complainants boarded the plane two times and deplaned. Even though the complainants had informed the urgency of their trip to Bangalore, no reasons were stated by the officials of the opposite parties and at last at 10 P.M. on 19.5.2006 they were informed that the flight was cancelled and the passengers would be given the refund of flight charges or they could travel by the next day’s flight.

The complainants were shocked on getting the information as they had to be at Bangalore at least by 8 a.m. on 20.5.2005 and there was no possibility of reaching there by any means before that time. If the officials of the opposite parties had informed earlier that the flight would be cancelled, the complainants could have travelled by the Deccan Airlines which left the Airport by evening. The officials were assuring the complainants that they could go to Bangalore even though it would be a bit late and the complainants also were expecting to reach Bangalore on 19.5.2006 itself on the assurance of the officials of the opposite parties.”

3. In their written response before the Forum, the OP/RP have gone into considerable details of the nature of the mechanical breakdown in the aircraft and the extent of effort put in to have it rectified, before finally deciding to cancel the flight in the interest of passengers’ safety. However, specific response to the issue raised in the complaint is contained in a single paragraph which reads as follows:

“All the averments contained in paragraph 5 and 6 are incorrect and hence denied. All communications and information passed on to the passengers were absolutely correct according to the prevailing circumstances of that time. As stated earlier the opposite parties cannot weigh and consider each and every passenger’s urgency and purpose of their journey. If at all there were other flights from Trivandrum to Bangalore on that day definitely the opposite parties would have considered and rendered all possible help to the complainants to avoid any inconvenience to the complainants.”

4. Considering the case of the two sides, the District Forum decided to allow the complaint, awarding Rs. 25,000/- as compensation and Rs. 4,000/- as costs to the complainant. While doing so, the Forum has observed:

“In the present case before us, the opposite parties have not produced any evidence to show that the delay was duly informed to the p